libphobos on ARM
nospam at example.com
Thu Jun 14 10:42:28 PDT 2012
Am Wed, 13 Jun 2012 17:24:18 +0100
schrieb Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw at ubuntu.com>:
> I can check this, but the side of the issue when I checked some time
> ago I saw was that the initialiser is a typeless constructor that is
> raw casted into the type we are assigning it to, so one bad factor of
> that is we are relying on the member layout to match what was created
> by toDt.
So DECL_INITIAL would do a type check? That would detect size
mismatches of course and is probably a good idea.
> > 2 seems like it probably wouldn't be ABI compatible to dmd. I don't
> > care if we break ABI compatibility, just wanted to mention that.
> 2 is more for better debug information for a class and interface
> declaration's inheritance tree. Ever notice that you can't access
> methods through the debugger, lest you want to ICE gdb? :-)
> There's a little bit of cludge and cleanup needed around that code
> area anyway, so it's on my TODO.
I haven't looked at GCCs inheritance implementation for C++ yet, maybe
it's even possible to stay ABI compatible to dmd? Would be good to keep
at least ClassInfo (as declared in druntime) consistent.
More information about the D.gnu